Wintersmith et al
Oct. 25th, 2006 02:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullMy very good and patient friend ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
baeraad in response to one of my many proddings wrote in his lj:
Oh man yes! :D I read it a few days ago. And from the moment I opened it until I got to the last page, I spent all my time doing one of two things; reading or walking briskly around my apartment trying to resist the urge to whoop and holler in a way offensive to my neighbours. :D
Oh, the characters! Oh, the plot! Oh, the grandeur seamlessly fitting together with the matter-of-fact realism! Oh, my complete inability to say anything on the subject without melting into a puddle of pure Fanboy! ^_^;;
I did remember to study the style, and I must admit it was interesting. There's a detail here, there's a detail there, and somehow it comes together into an entire world. This is definitely what I have to try for - no long descriptions, but a framework for the readers to fill out.
Oh, and I was very fond of the beginning. Not something to try in a stand-alone book, I think, but seeing as this is the third book in a series... we know pretty much what shape things will have, don't we? We know Tiffany is going to be exposed to the Discworld-witch version of zen philosophy, we know that there's going to be an antagonist who's more a force of nature than a person, and we know that there's going to be some kind of showdown where she's going to have to demonstrate what she's learned (the real Witch Trials aren't competitions, are they? They turn up out of nowhere, and the witch either knows her stuff or she doesn't, and if she doesn't, she's not the only one who's going to have to pay).
So here we get it right from the start - just how powerful Tiffany has become, and just how inadequate that is in the face of what she's dealing with. So all through the story, we know that this is where we're heading. We never have to ask ourselves if it's going to get worse before it gets better. We know that it will.
I also love the escalating scale of responsibility Tiffany has to take in each book. In Wee Free Men, the problem came from outside, and she was the only one who could deal with it. In Hat Full of Sky, it was her own desires made a mess of things, but they had to be triggered from the outside. In Wintersmith, it's her fault. Period. She didn't mean any harm, but she did something stupid, and now she's going to have to deal with the consequences before her world ends because of it.
First I don't think that beginning works only because it's part of a series, in fact I am quite sure it would work SMASHINGLY well in any novel. Think of it, imagine this is the first book by Pterry you've ever read. Wouldn't you want to read on to know what the fuck has happened and how and why and to whom and who the HELL is this girl? Me, I would and I'm sure I'm a pretty average reader when it comes to pant over a book and forget to eat at first reading. I come over all critiquy and things at the third or fourth reading, actually.
Then, I don't know you but Tiffany Aching is a heroine I love to dislike. I really do and I think that THIS is the measure of Pterry's real greatness as an author. Look, I'm not sure I can explain, but... well, you see, in a way the Tiffany trilogy is a kind of anti-Potter thingy. There you have your misunderstood but quite hefty hero ('kay, 's a heroine and am not spitting on that but please allow me), there you have your compeer nemesis who is nothing half as lethal as the real baddies (alright, not exactly baddies as such, this is Pterry, not some clichéd pen pusher) but who is snotty and things and you have other compeers who may not seem much, but in the end they are pretty good at things. See where I'm going?
Tiffany is... *takes a deep breath* ... complicated, which I love, and not particularly lovely, which is alright because she has THE quality that really makes her a hero: she takes the consequences of her actions. She's pretty cool, in fact she's way too cool in her own estimation, and here's where the Potter parallel comes in. And you know why I love Pterry so much - BTW I think Maya's getting there, slowly but if she keeps this last style of writing, she's definitely getting there - because he ain't afraid of presenting a not very likeable heroine and he never but never shirks on her bad - very really bad - qualities and he never sugarcoats things BUT anyone can see why she's the bloody heroine. Not because she's powerful, but because she takes responsibilities and fucking PAYS her dues. I don't know many writers who can do that, y'know? Keep the ethics and not fall into the 'loveable' hero pattern.
So what does one do when the hero/ine is not that likeable a person? :-D One gives a long hard look at the baduns and sees if there's anything that resonates there. And oooooooooh LOOOK! We have two!
I truly find Annagramma and Mrs Earwig lovely persons. YEP! I confess: if Granny weren't so... so... oh fuck so on THE EDGE all of the time I wouldn't love her so deeply or so much. The fact that Granny is never but never allowing herself Tiffany's kind of arrogance makes her own arrogance endearing. But my heart, in a way, would be with Mrs Earwig and her daring theory of combining male and female magic all the way and all the time.
Annagramma - Tiffany's Draco - LEARNS! Wow! A character who allows facts and experience to influence her way of thinking and acting! Wow! I mean. WOW. I mean she learns she is NOT redeemed. You see the utter awesomeness? And also Annagramma learns lots more than Tiffany, y'know? Because after all's said and done and after Tiffany's learned what it takes to re-define legends and anthropomorphic personifications, she STILL is going to join the dance AGAIN. Catch Annagramma doing something so stupid or being so absent-minded and caught up in the excitement of the moment to do something so stupid. See what I mean?
And I love Mr Wintersmith and his ice roses that melt in the warmth of a human hand and his ice palace of dreams. I love tragedies and all Tiffany's stories are tragedies, have you unoticed? Tragedies hidden in folk rhymes and ballads that are made clear and present. And any person who dares belittle the MacFleagles' triumph will know the extent of my wrath. Which, I hasten to say, is rather more Granny-like than anything else.
Well, this would have been too long a reply and also that thread was starting to get looooooong, so this is a mercy cut, or surgery operation.
baeraad in response to one of my many proddings wrote in his lj:Oh man yes! :D I read it a few days ago. And from the moment I opened it until I got to the last page, I spent all my time doing one of two things; reading or walking briskly around my apartment trying to resist the urge to whoop and holler in a way offensive to my neighbours. :D
Oh, the characters! Oh, the plot! Oh, the grandeur seamlessly fitting together with the matter-of-fact realism! Oh, my complete inability to say anything on the subject without melting into a puddle of pure Fanboy! ^_^;;
I did remember to study the style, and I must admit it was interesting. There's a detail here, there's a detail there, and somehow it comes together into an entire world. This is definitely what I have to try for - no long descriptions, but a framework for the readers to fill out.
Oh, and I was very fond of the beginning. Not something to try in a stand-alone book, I think, but seeing as this is the third book in a series... we know pretty much what shape things will have, don't we? We know Tiffany is going to be exposed to the Discworld-witch version of zen philosophy, we know that there's going to be an antagonist who's more a force of nature than a person, and we know that there's going to be some kind of showdown where she's going to have to demonstrate what she's learned (the real Witch Trials aren't competitions, are they? They turn up out of nowhere, and the witch either knows her stuff or she doesn't, and if she doesn't, she's not the only one who's going to have to pay).
So here we get it right from the start - just how powerful Tiffany has become, and just how inadequate that is in the face of what she's dealing with. So all through the story, we know that this is where we're heading. We never have to ask ourselves if it's going to get worse before it gets better. We know that it will.
I also love the escalating scale of responsibility Tiffany has to take in each book. In Wee Free Men, the problem came from outside, and she was the only one who could deal with it. In Hat Full of Sky, it was her own desires made a mess of things, but they had to be triggered from the outside. In Wintersmith, it's her fault. Period. She didn't mean any harm, but she did something stupid, and now she's going to have to deal with the consequences before her world ends because of it.
First I don't think that beginning works only because it's part of a series, in fact I am quite sure it would work SMASHINGLY well in any novel. Think of it, imagine this is the first book by Pterry you've ever read. Wouldn't you want to read on to know what the fuck has happened and how and why and to whom and who the HELL is this girl? Me, I would and I'm sure I'm a pretty average reader when it comes to pant over a book and forget to eat at first reading. I come over all critiquy and things at the third or fourth reading, actually.
Then, I don't know you but Tiffany Aching is a heroine I love to dislike. I really do and I think that THIS is the measure of Pterry's real greatness as an author. Look, I'm not sure I can explain, but... well, you see, in a way the Tiffany trilogy is a kind of anti-Potter thingy. There you have your misunderstood but quite hefty hero ('kay, 's a heroine and am not spitting on that but please allow me), there you have your compeer nemesis who is nothing half as lethal as the real baddies (alright, not exactly baddies as such, this is Pterry, not some clichéd pen pusher) but who is snotty and things and you have other compeers who may not seem much, but in the end they are pretty good at things. See where I'm going?
Tiffany is... *takes a deep breath* ... complicated, which I love, and not particularly lovely, which is alright because she has THE quality that really makes her a hero: she takes the consequences of her actions. She's pretty cool, in fact she's way too cool in her own estimation, and here's where the Potter parallel comes in. And you know why I love Pterry so much - BTW I think Maya's getting there, slowly but if she keeps this last style of writing, she's definitely getting there - because he ain't afraid of presenting a not very likeable heroine and he never but never shirks on her bad - very really bad - qualities and he never sugarcoats things BUT anyone can see why she's the bloody heroine. Not because she's powerful, but because she takes responsibilities and fucking PAYS her dues. I don't know many writers who can do that, y'know? Keep the ethics and not fall into the 'loveable' hero pattern.
So what does one do when the hero/ine is not that likeable a person? :-D One gives a long hard look at the baduns and sees if there's anything that resonates there. And oooooooooh LOOOK! We have two!
I truly find Annagramma and Mrs Earwig lovely persons. YEP! I confess: if Granny weren't so... so... oh fuck so on THE EDGE all of the time I wouldn't love her so deeply or so much. The fact that Granny is never but never allowing herself Tiffany's kind of arrogance makes her own arrogance endearing. But my heart, in a way, would be with Mrs Earwig and her daring theory of combining male and female magic all the way and all the time.
Annagramma - Tiffany's Draco - LEARNS! Wow! A character who allows facts and experience to influence her way of thinking and acting! Wow! I mean. WOW. I mean she learns she is NOT redeemed. You see the utter awesomeness? And also Annagramma learns lots more than Tiffany, y'know? Because after all's said and done and after Tiffany's learned what it takes to re-define legends and anthropomorphic personifications, she STILL is going to join the dance AGAIN. Catch Annagramma doing something so stupid or being so absent-minded and caught up in the excitement of the moment to do something so stupid. See what I mean?
And I love Mr Wintersmith and his ice roses that melt in the warmth of a human hand and his ice palace of dreams. I love tragedies and all Tiffany's stories are tragedies, have you unoticed? Tragedies hidden in folk rhymes and ballads that are made clear and present. And any person who dares belittle the MacFleagles' triumph will know the extent of my wrath. Which, I hasten to say, is rather more Granny-like than anything else.
Well, this would have been too long a reply and also that thread was starting to get looooooong, so this is a mercy cut, or surgery operation.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-18 05:21 pm (UTC)Gift them with either of the following:
Richard Dawkins "The God Illusion"
Daniel C. Dennett "Breaking the Spell"
Incidentally read them, they're excellent. Dawkins addresses the 'spiritual' experience of discovering Science (Darwinism, which ain't a religion) as he was a personal friend of Adams' and admits he made a mistake not addressing the folly of using science as a religion substitute. Both rant against the privileges religious believers demand. All in all a very comfortable coze with people of a like mind about things.
I think I see the difference. You define a fantasy writer as a writer who cannot escape the strictures of stereotypical fantasy, yes? :)
Exactly, though I'd add 'who cannot escape in her/his mind...' It's not a literary stance, but a limitation of the mind IMO. All others are GOOD writers and the genre definition is a trite mental shorthand I can't be having with. :p
I don't agree on your definition of 'devout'. It actually means zealous, like a fundamentalist, a way of feeling so overpowering one wraps one's whole life around it. Actually I subscribe to Pterry's definition of a devouted atheist, y'know? Atheism is the absence of devotion. Ideas can be changed, facts should alter theories and so forth: there's nothing fixed or stable. That's why one doesn't think about it normally. One would think - and seriously - about it if some FACT would cast doubts on it; one thinks about it when discussing it with other people - as I'm doing now - or writing a book or something like that. Otherwise why think about it? Whereas religion demands that you think about it the whole time, IMO.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 11:15 am (UTC)Daniel C. Dennett "Breaking the Spell"
Oooh. (*makes note*) I'll get them. It's always such a pleasure reading about sensible people's views. And the opportunity is so rare. =]
And Krystle can damn well read them too, yes she can. I read two books that she told me to read, after all, and that was a painful experience that tarnished my soul with excessive amounts of anger and malice. Fair is fair. ;)
Ideas can be changed, facts should alter theories and so forth: there's nothing fixed or stable.
There is a problem with this, though. Quite frequently, new facts appear that do not seem to fit whatever theory you hold to. But just because it doesn't seem to fit it doesn't mean that there's no explanation of the fact under the theory - you may just not have thought of it yet.
This is perfectly scientific thinking. Scientists ultimately abandon a theory that attracts too many contradicting facts, yes, but first they try like hell to find some variable that lets it all make sense without having to change the theory - or, as a second choice, they try to change the theory just a little, so that it's essentially the same but accounts for the contradiction.
Like... you're an atheist. If you saw an angel walk through the room, would you immediately become a Christian? Or would you assume you had been halucinating? The second, I think. The world is full of seeming contradictions, so you don't get anywhere by giving up on a theory at the first sight of trouble. =]
What I'm saying is, atheism is a smart theory based on the facts and religion is a dumb theory based on cultural habit, but they're both theories, and you can be committed or uncommitted to them (though religion demands rather more committment - refuses to be questioned at all, in fact). Someone who's never considered religion because he's never bothered to ask the big questions isn't what I'd call a proper atheist. More an atheist-by-default. And one who's going to turn in a heartbeat the moment some missionairing twit starts lecturing at him. =]
So I'm going to be stubborn and insist that you can indeed be a devout atheist. :) Though "devout" is perhaps an ill-chosen word - I didn't mean to imply fanaticism. But I would say that Pratchett et all clearly believes in science, in atheism, in humanism, not just in the lukewarm way of most people, but in the sense of genuinely believing that this is the best thing we've got going for us, and what's more, that this is enough.
Perhaps rather than to say "devout," I should talk about "comfortable" atheists?
Whereas religion demands that you think about it the whole time, IMO.
You're right here, I admit - that is a difference. Atheism lets you get on with your life in peace, whereas religion demands excessive amounts of "waaaah! I'm still not virtious enough!". =]
Say... if I were to say, "I'm not an atheist, I'm a philosopher," would you consider that to be two unrelated statements?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 09:02 pm (UTC)When I said that theories can be (and must be) changed by facts I meant exactly what you're saying, y'know? First contrdictory fact, you see if there is a way you can twitch your theory to include it, but always accepting that the fact doesn't fit if you want to think scientifically. If I saw an angel (and let's not forget that if the angel was Aziraphale, I could not realise I'd seen one), I'd test myself for hallucinations but I wouldn't dismiss it with a NAAAAH! because it threatens my beautiful elegant theory. Actually I think I'd go for 'it could well be an alien and that's how religions started' as a tentative theory first, but if it was an angel, I'd have to revise my theory and start gathering data from it by interrogation and tests. Doubt the angel'd like it, but that is sceince for you. :p
I agree with the rest too. Atheism is where you arrive when you think seriously and scientifically about the God question, IMO. It's certainly not cowardly agnosticism or lassez-faire ignorance. And yep, 'devout' is an ill-chosen word, though if you were aiming for a paradox to illuminate some underlining reality, it worked wonders.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-22 01:21 pm (UTC)That sounds familiar. Wasn't he mentioned in the last Science of Discworld book?
So, yeah, read him and see why I'd consider them two utterly unrelated statements.
Ah. (*nods*) I read a book last week that treated "philosopher" and "atheist" almost like they were synonymous, so I certainly understand what you mean. =]
How should I put it, then? I don't care if my god exists or not. More to the point, I know he does, because I can feel him in my head all the time. But if he doesn't exist outside my head, what of it? He's been very useful to me, and if believing in something gives me practical benefits, I don't really care if it's true or not. =]
But I think that means I'm not a scientist. They should care about what's true, shouldn't they? Then again, there is such a thing as positivism, which as I understand it means that you can hold to any theory you want as long as it accurately predicts the future... =]
let's not forget that if the angel was Aziraphale, I could not realise I'd seen one
Hehe, yeah, angels are sneaky buggers who likes to travel undercover. But let's say an honest one, possibly even with a fiery sword and stuff. =]
Actually I think I'd go for 'it could well be an alien and that's how religions started' as a tentative theory first
(*laughs*) Yeah, that's a good point. There really isn't any chance that any religion's going to turn out right, is there? It perplexes me that they don't understand this. Atheism (and let's for a moment forget that I just admitted myself not to be a proper atheist) isn't about thinking that science is right about everything. It's the pretty safe belief that God isn't suddenly going to part the clouds, stick his face down and go "FOOLED YOU!". =] It's the assumption that the answers to all the question we're facing are going to be of the same general sort as all the answers we've found so far.
Personally, if I saw an angel walking through the room, I'd start thinking about things like energy constructs and latent clairvoyance and self-hypnosis. And then I'd feel really insulted, because, why an angel, for Pete's sake? I'm a good sinner! I've earned a proper devil! =]
Doubt the angel'd like it, but that is sceince for you. :p
I'm sure it'd suffer through it with angelic patience. Unless it was a warrior angel, in which case it'd smite you with angelic impatience. You never know with these things, some people figure angels has to be good and sweet and pure and wonderful and others figure they need to be filled with righteous wrath so they can smite atheists, heathens, heretics, infidels and people who snore during sermon. They're bound to get sort of schizofrenic. =]